So the vote was 5-2 in favour of the merge. the merge was as per current guidelines. why cancel it?
There are a HUGE number of samplers already out there that are part of their RG. Following current guidelines.
Why post the discussion in the forum and have a vote if it is abandoned before it gets to the end?
I give up on trying to make sense of this place. Why have guidelines if they are to be ignored?
Take my cancel as the only way I can vote No or Abstain to my own edit.
As I am still in doubt and slightly more agree with keep separate now after reading the responses here.
I found a relationship that can link those 2 release groups in a way that is not semantically incorrect (album includes sampler).
What I wanted is not as it was, I wanted no more 2 unlinked release groups.
This goal is now attained.
If another editor would queue a merge edit, I would not vote No.
A cancelled merge can always be redone later. No harm done.
@ivandobsky, the current guidelines just say âPromotional versionsâ belong in the same RG. The whole discussion here is whether a sampler taken from the album (generally for promotional purposes) should be treated the same as a copy of the full release stamped âfor promotion onlyâ.
One way or another, we should clarify the guidelines - either to say âPromotional versions (including samplers)â or to add samplers to the âwhat should not be groupedâ section.
I donât think that is correct. The includes/included in parameter is for a release that is also included in a RG that includes other albums. See the help text:
For example, this 6-disc box set includes three 2-disc releases that are/were also sold individually:
If you buy the âDance of the Rainbow Serpent,â you donât also get the sampler.
For my money, including promos in the RG with the official releases is logical, and unambiguously displayed in MB:
If Iâm asked, âDo you own this album?â my response would be âI have a promo version with tracks.â
First off, I know what includes relationship is primarily made for: often albums (but here a sampler) that are included in bigger ones (often compilations, but here an album). 
Still the album includes the sampler, it has all its tracks (and more). So at least itâs better than no relationships to me, better than annotations too.
So yes, if I buy the album, I do get the sampler (all its tracks).
If I had only a sampler, I would really not consider having the album at all.
I think thatâs stretching the use of âincludeâ a little too far. The âsamplerâ is the disc, not the tracks that happen to also be on the disc.
But we do also use the âincludesâ relationship for a single âtwo-ferâ CD that compiles two LPs.
wait maybe I misunderstood the relationship, but I thought âincludes inâ means physically included in a box set, and if the tracklist is abstractly included in, I use the âtaken fromâ.
example: Release âmelonâ by THE BINARY - MusicBrainz
so Iâd use the âtaken fromâ relation in this case, even though the link phrase specifies âsingle/EPââŚ
No, âincludes inâ also works for a digital compilation including multiple albums in one âdiscâ - after all, itâs release group - release group, so it cannot be connected to one specific CD version 
A different, more use centric, way to look at it would be âwhen does a user start looking for it on its ownâ or âwhen is it more practical for MB browsers or Picard users to display it in a different groupâ
That would help with situations like I found last night. I found a promotion disc that was promoting an artist, rather than an album, so it had tracks from several of the artistâs albums. That, in my opinion, would be reason for the sampler to be in its own RG.
In this case, there is no questions.
Where would you put it, if not in its own compilation RG?
Thatâs what I said.
That, in my opinion, would be reason for the sampler to be in its own RG.
